Photon Mass: Debunking the Myth of Zero Mass in SR Equation

[pmb_phy]

again: in torsion gravity curvature of spacetime is ZERO. Read literature please.

I know GR thanks. It is you who does't know what you're talking about regarding GR. It sounds like you have no idea what torsion is. There is no torsion in GR by assumotion/postulate. If you have your own theory then you're posting messages in the wrong forum. This is not the forum for posting personal theories. When they are found those threads are moved to the correct forum. And I'm not interested in anyone's personal theories at this time in my life.

Pete

 

[pervect]

My definition is not only correct one, it is also standard. See the Handbook that cited above. Do you know that difference between an Handbook and a textbook?

Moreover, i already showed that definition i use is in the links that jtbell provided.

While the first link didn't work, the second link clearly supported J.T.Bell's correct argument (in equations 9 and 10), and did not support your point of view.

I'm not quite sure what sort of intellectual blinders you are wearing not to see this, but I guess I don't really want to know.

 

[Juan R.]

Sorry I don't have le Bellac.
How does the renormalized Lagrangian differ from the unrenormalized in that book? Is it just that m has been substituted by m₀?

It is not exclusive of le Bellac. The book is standard. See also Fisica quantica what i cited. Also celebrated Weinberg manual on QFT use the same m i used in the QED lagrangian (before the chapter in renormalization).

See equation 8.6.1 of Weinberg. Also Feynman book on QED, etc

One always begins with real physical mass m. After one may apply renormalization for eliminate infinites, but real electron mass is m, what is the mass that appears in tables of universal constants.

1) The physical renormalized mass is a mathematicla trick due to theoretical flaw of standard QFT. 2) That mass is not the electron mass, it is the observed mass due to virtual cloud.


Only m? I think that i replied to this in #89. Even if you cannot read spanish, you can see symbol "e".

On any case i see no signifcant error in my initial claim one begins with mass m before renormalization. You said "NO, one begins with bare mass", but in at least three standard books one begins with the same m i used in my definition.

You can verify that m used by Weinberg for the QED lagrangian verifies expresion i used and appears in the Handbook.

Am i wrong?

 

[pmb_phy]

My definition is not only correct one, it is also standard. See the Handbook that cited above. Do you know that difference between an Handbook and a textbook?

There is no universal definition since there was no term used = As I said, the terms were in your minds and not on the board. This happened between both posters but each was unable to nail quite rightly what the meat of the subject was. This happens throughout the physics literature for this very same reason.

Pete

 

[Juan R.]

I know GR thanks. It is you who does't know what you're talking about regarding GR. It sounds like you have no idea what torsion is. There is no torsion in GR by assumotion/postulate. If you have your own theory then you're posting messages in the wrong forum. This is not the forum for posting personal theories. When they are found those threads are moved to the correct forum. And I'm not interested in anyone's personal theories at this time in my life.

Pete

If you know GR then you know that GR cannot -rigorously- explain the Newtonian limit in the linear regime.

I know both standard GR which is based in the asumption of spacetime curvature and torsion gravity which is based -i say again- in ZERO spacetime curvature.

Personal theory? There are many people that does not follow curvature description. Since it appears that you cannot search literature by yourself i will do.

arXiv:gr-qc/0403074

You claimed that spacetime curvature had been measured which is, of course, completely false. One measure forces.

Are those forces the result of

a) Spacetime curvature

b) spacetime torsion

c) A force in Weinberg sense?

You said that idea of no curvature was crazy. Let me cite again to Thorne, the same guy of classical textbook on gravitation by Thorne, Misner, and Wheeler.

Is spacetime REALLY curved? Isn't it conceivable that spacetime is actually flat, but the clocks and rulers with which we measure it... are actually rubbery? Wouldn't... distortions of our clocks and rulers make truly flat spacetime appear to be curved? Yes.

 

[Juan R.]

While the first link didn't work, the second link clearly supported J.T.Bell's correct argument (in equations 9 and 10), and did not support your point of view.

I'm not quite sure what sort of intellectual blinders you are wearing not to see this, but I guess I don't really want to know.

Please, click in the second link of #81

"The second link clearly supported jtbell arguments"

Are you sure of that?

Perhaps i am reading a different pdf document that you, but definition of mass m used in equation (5) of above PDF link is exactly i used.

Equations (9) and (10) you cite are used in equation (11) for the definition of

W

or more exactly the definition of

W²

but the definition of

m

continues to be that of equation (5) which is the same i used several post ago...

For systems of particles one may introduce the potential energy BUT in the study of scattering asymptotic states like that of pair anhilitation process, the potential energy is zero by cluster decomposition principle and then

E^2 = p^2 + m^2

 

[Juan R.]

There is no universal definition since there was no term used = As I said, the terms were in your minds and not on the board. This happened between both posters but each was unable to nail quite rightly what the meat of the subject was. This happens throughout the physics literature for this very same reason.

Pete

sorry but Handbook definition is standard one.

 

[pmb_phy]

sorry but Handbook definition is standard one.

That's total nonsense. That certainly can't be taken to mean that all "handbooks" agree nor does it mean that the terms in a "handbook" are adhered to by all professionals - In fact they usually disagree. Go look for yourself. Find 5 different "handbooks" and see if each and every one defines the term "mass" identically. Then go to several GR and SR texts and see if they agree with the handbooks.

If I were you I'd worry less about who defines what as what but concern yourself more on the various definitions used and how they are used. Any handbook that defines "mass" as the magnitude of a 4-vector is wrong. That is a quite limited use. A general definition is what is desired, i.e. one that works all the time. Then you can choose your own way in your own work and simply define your terms. This is how its usually done.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

If you know GR then you know that GR cannot -rigorously- explain the Newtonian limit in the linear regime.

wrong.

I know both standard GR which is based in the asumption of spacetime curvature and torsion gravity which is based -i say again- in ZERO spacetime curvature.

Wrong.

Personal theory?

Yes. Are you going by Einstein's general theory of relativity or Juan's general theory of relativity?

There are many people that does not follow curvature description. Since it appears that you cannot search literature by yourself i will do.

This is where the discussion ends. When you start being a wiseguy/flaming etc.

No more interaction between us until you act more like a professional or more like an adult.

(snip)

Pete

 

[Juan R.]

That's total nonsense. That certainly can't be taken to mean that all "handbooks" agree nor does it mean that the terms in a "handbook" are adhered to by all professionals - In fact they usually disagree. Go look for yourself. Find 5 different "handbooks" and see if each and every one defines the term "mass" identically. Then go to several GR and SR texts and see if they agree with the handbooks.

If I were you I'd worry less about who defines what as what but concern yourself more on the various definitions used and how they are used. Any handbook that defines "mass" as the magnitude of a 4-vector is wrong. That is a quite limited use. A general definition is what is desired, i.e. one that works all the time. Then you can choose your own way in your own work and simply define your terms. This is how its usually done.

Pete

curiously they agree

 

[Juan R.]

pmb_phy you would know topics before reply.

False, It is easily proved, read Wald textbook on Newtonian limit and learn.

False and also false read

arXiv:gr-qc/0403074

on torsion gravity

and learn also

Feynman-Weinberg approach to gravitation on literature.

 

[pervect]

Please, click in the second link of #81

"The second link clearly supported jtbell arguments"

Are you sure of that?

Yep. J T Bell's post

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=742363&postcount=66

is correct (for special relativity), and well supported by his links. Your responses are not only off, but way off. A few other posters have attempted to tell you that you are wrong as well (Ich, pmb), but you just don't seem to pay any attention, and continue on, oblivious. At this point the utility of arguing with you appears to be pretty low, because you're not paying any attention.

 

[pmb_phy]

Yep. J T Bell's post

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=742363&postcount=66

is correct (for special relativity), and well supported by his links. Your responses are not only off, but way off. A few other posters have attempted to tell you that you are wrong as well (Ich, pmb), but you just don't seem to pay any attention, and continue on, oblivious. At this point the utility of arguing with you appears to be pretty low, because you're not paying any attention.

pervect - I blocked this recent flamer/whiner/troublemaker "Juan R." However if you detect anything that you, El or anyone else thinks is worthy of consideration please let me know, okay?

Pete

 

[Doc Al]

I think it's time to close this thread.